I added four strings to the defs.qc as they were the errors I recived after compiling.

float visible_distance;
.float gorging;
.float stoleweapon;
.entity lastvictim;

How can I make addittions to the defs.qc , or should I delete all functions in grem.qc that work with doe.qc 

Like ijed said, just move those lines right to the bottom of defs.qc, and you should be fine. 

that worked.
You earned your pronounciationmark back Ij!ed.

Alhough I don't see it steal my gun, it works fine. 

Alot of times. When you're learning blind a molehill is everest. 

 

Well I trried including a Gremlin in my map without the whole SOA pak. And as I expected was the hipgrem.qc not enough. I had to make a change to the ai.qc and defs.qc as well.
When I was done and could compile without errors the gremlin came in game.

But for some reason the weapon steal trick doesn't seem to go. I did all I thought I need to do changing the needed hipsdef into the normal def.qc but something slipped away. 

it was neg!ke with his pronouncion mark. 

i guess its a dubious question asking where the gremlin has left my weapon. 

i want to be sure i understand these:

Operations:

self.flags = self.flags - (self.flags & FL_ONGROUND);
this will subtract FL_ONGROUND but ONLY if FL_ONGROUND is present in self.flags.

whereas:
self.flags = self.flags - FL_SWIM;
would just blindly subtract the flag and risk breaking self.flags if FL_SWIM wasn't there when you subtracted.

likewise:

self.flags = self.flags | FL_ONGROUND;
would add FL_ONGROUND but only if FL_ONGROUND wasn't present in self.flags.

whereas:
self.flags = self.flags + FL_SWIM;
would add the flag as well, but would break if FL_SWIM was already present in self.flags.


Conditionals:

if (self.flags & FL_ONGROUND)
is the only way to check if FL_ONGROUND is present in self.flags. 

But the safe versions are strongly preferred, because they don't break anything.

Note that you can work with multiple bits if you need to. The code for picking up armor removes all 3 armor flags before adding the correct one.

The only operation I'm not sure how to do is to toggle a flag (if off, set it; if on, clear it). 

The following code will toggle flags:

self.flags = (self.flags | FL_ONGROUND) - (self.flags & FL_ONGROUND);

The right hand side features two halves. In the case that FL_ONGROUND is already set, the first half does nothing, and the second half is equal to FL_ONGROUND, so the flag gets removed.

In the case that FL_ONGROUND is not set, the first half turns it on, and the second half is equal to zero, so has no effect.

There's a nice kind of symmetry going on with this formula. It combines the adding and subtracting flags, but in such a way that only one actually does anything in each case. The whole right hand side is evaluated before the result is assigned to the left hand side, you there is no risk that self.flags changes mid way through.

It's worth knowing that this can be extended to multiple flags:

float IT_TOP3WEAPONS = IT_GRENADE_LAUNCHER | IT_ROCKET_LAUNCHER | IT_LIGHTNING;
self.items = (self.items | IT_TOP3WEAPONS) - (self.items & IT_TOP3WEAPONS);

This code will toggle the most powerful weapons in the player's inventory correctly, regardless of which ones they may possess. In practice, it would be worth following up that line with a call to W_BestWeapon(), in case the player was using one of the weapons you just toggled. 

didn't know about the toggle one. 

You know, the one where you pick up 2 items more-or-less simultaneously, and hear only 1 sound. I was thinking of fixing it engine-side, but then I realized this: often, 1 sound overriding another is the desired behavior.

I know of the null.wav being used to kill a playing sound, but I suspect there are other situations. Can you guys give me some examples? 

It probably makes more sense to look at it from the opposite side, ie. when don't you want one sound to override another?

So, picking up multiple, different items; using a key which causes a door to open; what else? 

"Quad Cancel" sound bug, where you land just after picking up the quad, and the "oof" overrides the quad pickup sound. 

Picking up the MH at DM4 with no sound (picking up the rockets to achieve that) is a deathmatch tactic.

I am all for it anyways. 

It makes sense that anything a monster/player says overrides what they were previously saying - for example a pain sound interrupting some other noise.

If people wanted multiple pickups to sound, the fix is easy to perform in QC. Just remove the channel specification from the sound command - if set to 0, the sound plays from any available channel. 

The DM angle is something I hadn't thought about, so I probably should just apply the fix to sp/coop. I agree that changing the QC is the "proper" way to do it, but an engine workaround has the advantage of not requiring any effort from the user(*).

How about only applying the fix to CHAN_ITEM and the powerups on CHAN_VOICE? Or is there a case where you'd want one of these sfx to be stopped before completion? (I'll probably include a check for null.wav, which would kill all sounds on the channel)


*assuming I do eventually release this, and anyone actually uses it 

to cheap hacks. :( 

Quake as we know it wouldn't exist without them - interpolation, fullbrights, external textures, skyboxes, fog, extended limits, modified protocols, plus a good chunk of the id & hipnotic code.

It's a good philosophy to keep in mind, but it's never a black-and-white issue. The reality is that all code makes assumptions about the environment in which it's run. And making changes to an existing codebase is never as clean as it would be were the features part of the original design. Sometimes you have to bend the rules to get the result you want. And in the end, if it works, people are willing to overlook the messiness of the implementation.

So I take it personally when someone dismisses my attempt to fix a known bug as a "cheap hack". If you've got any particular concerns or informed criticism, I'd like to hear them. Otherwise, don't bother.

And to those who provided useful input, thank you :) 

except it is a cheap hack. it will cause an inconsistency in how channels work for a specific few cases which can cause confusion and annoyance later down the line for some poor bastard modder who isn't aware of one guy's attempt to 'fix' behaviour that was working as intended. a sound is expected to override the previous sound playing on a channel.

if it bothers you, fix it in qc (channels 5, 6 and 7 on the player are rarely, if never(?) used-- they could easily be used for a second item channel) because it's a qc bug. you can even play the pickup sounds on the items themselves, although the left/right won't be balanced because the sound isn't emanating from the player, but that solution is probably the most easiest to implement. 

That made a far better case for your point than your previous post ;)

I guess my frustration wasn't really due to you calling it a cheap hack (because I'm not disputing that); it was more the feeling that you were dismissing it outright. The truth is I respect you for all you've contributed to the Quake community, so it's people like you I need to hear from to help me see things from a mapper/modder view. So thanks for the followup.

For me, the annoying thing with a bug like this is, here we are, 13 years later, and the QC hasn't been fixed (afaik; maybe you guys did in Quoth, but that would still leave a few hundred mods that are potentially affected, plus the thousands of maps that people don't run under Quoth).

One part of your post I didn't quite get was the "play the pickup sounds on the items themselves". Were you talking about reworking the QC to call sound() in an item-specific touch function rather than the generic one? Or were you talking about the engine making use of the .noise field? 

I'm not actually convinced that it is a bug, because they added the idea of specifying a channel to qc specifically so that the sounds could be overriden. Perhaps a few sounds should be split off into their own channels, like the landing sound and the item pickup playing seperately. But I can see the sense of not playing multiple "item pickup" sounds on top of each other, because it would create a pretty nasty echo effect. The current system of cutting off and resetting the sound on the same channel is probably easier to parse when you listen. 

sound(other, CHAN_ITEM, self.noise, 1, ATTN_NORM); from health_touch()

it plays the sound on 'other' which in this case, is the player who touched it.

if you change this (and the other items) to play the sound on 'self' instead, multiple pickups will all play sounds of the item itself, not the player.

the only problem is that if you pick up items from the side, the sound will not be centered like it is when you play sounds on the player. sounds that the player makes are always centered (they come out of the left and right channels equally).

and no, i didn't fix it in quoth (and i don't think preach did, because i don't remember noticing it when i played quoth2 stuff).

this is really a preference thing, but it never really stood out as something that really needed fixing to me. i never even noticed that it would be a problem because i always took it as a matter of course that multiple items being picked up at once results in blocking some sounds out. it's either that or, as preach mentioned, a cacophony of different pickups all at once which is just as difficult to make out.

also, be wary of using CHAN_AUTO (channel 0) because the engine just picks whatever free channel it can find. that can be the weapon channel sometimes so you'll be in the same spot with say your shotgun blocking out the quad pickup sounds now instead of the nail box. :S

this is just my opinion but i think bringing in cool stuff from more modern engines like doom3 such as proper scripting, proper rotating brushes (the rotating entity itself causes collision without needing to hack in invisible collision brushes) and hierarchical entity binding, all done engine side would be completely bad ass. you will notice i'm am avoiding things like real time lighting, bump mapping and such. to me, as a mapper, i'm less interested in those things than i am with stuff that can increase the creativity of the maps being created. 

Anyway, I did look into the rotation stuff a bit. Would the Hexen II code be good enough? Very little change on the engine side, but the collision is quite rough (it just expands the bbox so it's big enough to contain the entity at any angle).

Regardless of the method, the tricky part might be deciding when the enhanced code should be used. Maybe a new SOLID_ or MOVETYPE_ constant? Also, there'd have to be a way to check for engine support via QC, probably via the checkextension system (just checked - DP's DP_SV_ROTATINGBMODEL extension may be the one).

The other features you mentioned sound intriguing, but right now I'm really trying to resist the urge to add new stuff, and just finish what's there (not nearly as much fun...). I'll keep it in mind for the future though.

And you don't need to worry about me adding visual fluff - my GL skills are at about a 1997 level :). Plus, I like my Quake to look like Quake, dammit!